Facts
- Congress enacted the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, creating an independent counsel process for investigating and prosecuting certain high-ranking executive officials.
- A dispute arose between Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency over withheld enforcement-related documents; a House Judiciary Committee investigation followed.
- The Committee reported that Theodore B. Olson, a former Assistant Attorney General, may have given false and misleading testimony and requested appointment of an independent counsel.
- The Attorney General sought appointment, and the Special Division (a court established by the Act) appointed Alexia Morrison as independent counsel and defined her jurisdiction.
- A jurisdictional dispute arose over whether Morrison could investigate “related matters”; the Special Division interpreted her authority broadly.
- Morrison obtained grand jury subpoenas for Olson and others; the subpoenaed parties moved to quash, arguing the independent counsel provisions were unconstitutional.
- The district court upheld the statute, denied the motions to quash, and held the parties in contempt for noncompliance.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed, concluding the statute violated the Appointments Clause and intruded on executive power.
- The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the constitutional challenges.
Issues
- Whether an independent counsel appointed under the Act is an “inferior Officer” whose appointment Congress may vest in a court under the Appointments Clause.
- Whether assigning the Special Division authority to appoint the independent counsel and define jurisdiction violates Article III.
- Whether limiting removal of the independent counsel to “good cause” by the Attorney General, and the Act’s overall structure, violates separation of powers by interfering with the President’s Article II authority.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and upheld the independent counsel provisions in a 7–1 decision (Justice Kennedy not participating).
- The Court held the independent counsel is an inferior officer, permitting appointment by a court pursuant to the Appointments Clause.
- The Court held the Special Division’s functions (including defining jurisdiction and receiving reports) did not violate Article III.
- The Court held the good-cause removal restriction, with removal vested in the Attorney General, did not impermissibly interfere with executive authority and therefore did not violate separation of powers.
- Justice Scalia dissented, arguing prosecution is purely executive power that must remain subject to the President’s direct control.
Legal Principles
- “Inferior officer” status can be supported by limited jurisdiction, limited tenure, lack of broad policymaking authority, and removability by a higher executive official.
- The Appointments Clause allows Congress to vest appointment of inferior officers in “courts of Law,” permitting certain interbranch appointments when constitutionally authorized.
- Article III permits courts to perform nonadjudicatory tasks that are sufficiently limited and do not entail ongoing judicial supervision of executive law enforcement.
- Separation-of-powers analysis may turn on whether statutory limits “unduly trammel” the President’s ability to perform constitutional functions, rather than on categorical rules requiring at-will presidential removal in all settings.
- A good-cause removal limit on an executive law enforcement officer may be valid when removal remains within the Executive Branch and presidential control is not reduced to a degree that disables constitutional duties.
Conclusion
The Court sustained Congress’s independent counsel framework by treating the prosecutor as an inferior officer whose court appointment and good-cause removal protection were compatible with Articles II and III, because the arrangement did not prevent the Executive from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities.